Introduction
Despite improvements in survival of newly diagnosed myeloma patients as a consequence of induction therapy with novel agents followed by consolidation with high dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), the majority of patients will suffer disease relapse/progression. There has been significant interest in the role of maintenance therapy following ASCT in order to delay disease relapse/progression and prolong survival. A number of randomised studies evaluated maintenance therapy with thalidomide, the first generation immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), following ASCT. In aggregate, while a benefit for progression-free survival (PFS) was observed, a consistent overall survival benefit has not been demonstrated and prolonged therapy with thalidomide has been limited by this agent’s side effect profile. 1 Lenalidomide, the second generation IMiD, has a more favourable side-effect profile and therefore has been studied in the context of post-ASCT maintenance therapy.
Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 100104, in collaboration with the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) randomised 460 patients to lenalidomide or placebo maintenance following ASCT. CALGB is now part of the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. Initial publication demonstrated that lenalidomide maintenance was associated with significantly longer time to disease progression (TTP) (median TTP of 46 months for the lenalidomide group and 27 months for the placebo group, p<0·0001) as well as a significant improvement in overall survival at median follow-up of 34 months. 2 Eight percent of patients in the lenalidomide group developed second primary malignancies (SPMs) before disease progression compared with three percent in the placebo group. Three other large randomised studies (IFM 2005-02, GIMEMA RV-209, and Myeloma XI study) evaluated the role of lenalidomide maintenance following ASCT. 3 – 5 While both the IFM 2005-02 and GIMEMA RV-209 studies reported significant improvements in PFS in the lenalidomide groups, there was no significant improvement in overall survival. The survival data for the Myeloma XI trial are not yet mature. SPM rates (excluding noninvasive skin cancers) of 7·5% 3 and 2·8% 4 were observed in the lenalidomide treatment groups of the IFM 2005-02 and GIMEMA RV-209 studies, respectively. A recent meta-analysis that included CALGB 100104, IFM 2005-02, and GIMEMA RV-209 found that lenalidomide maintenance significantly improves overall survival. 6 Here we present an updated analysis of CALGB 100104 which provides long-term follow-up data with respect to TTP, overall survival and SPMs.
Methods
Study design and patient selection
Adults aged 18 to 70 years were enrolled across 47 centers in the United States. Patients were eligible if they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, had symptomatic disease requiring treatment, had received no more than 12 months of any prior therapy, were within 12 months of initiation of induction therapy and had received at most two induction regimens. Patients were excluded if they had disease progression during induction therapy or if they had previously undergone a prior peripheral blood, bone marrow, or solid organ transplant. Patients with stable disease or better (marginal, partial, or complete response) in the first 100 days after ASCT were eligible. Additional details regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria can be found in the supplemental material . Each participant signed an IRB-approved, protocol-specific informed consent in accordance with federal and institutional guidelines.
Randomisation and masking
Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) in a double-blinded manner to initiate either lenalidomide or placebo between day 90 and day 100 after ASCT. Randomisation was stratified by three factors: normal or elevated β2-microglobulin level at registration (≤ 2·5 mg/L vs. > 2·5 mg/L), prior use or nonuse of thalidomide during induction therapy, and prior use or nonuse of lenalidomide during induction therapy. A permutated-block randomisation with a block size of six and equal allocation between two arms was utilized for each stratum. The study was unblinded on December 17, 2009 after the third interim analysis. A detailed description of the randomisation, unblinding, and interim analyses is included in the supplemental material . Of the 128 eligible patients without progressive disease in the placebo group, 86 chose to cross over and receive lenalidomide therapy.
Procedures
All patients with stable disease or better were scheduled to start therapy between day 100–110 post-ASCT. All patients started on two capsules (10 mg of lenalidomide, or placebo) per oral daily. After three months, the dose could be escalated to three capsules (15 mg) daily. Response and progression were initially defined using the European Blood and Marrow Transplant Group 7 and were subsequently changed to the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. 8 Criteria for continued treatment were decided by the local centers. Dose modifications are detailed in the supplemental material . Disease progressions (see supplemental material for definition), deaths, responses at day 100, one-year, two-year, and three-year post-ASCT were determined at the treating center and centrally reviewed according to the IMWG criteria, with the exception that stringent CR (sCR) was not utilized as a response category as the majority of patients did not undergo free light chain testing. The central review was done in a blinded manner by four of the authors (SAH, PLM, SG, EAS).
Outcomes
The primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP), defined as time to progressive disease or death from any cause after transplantation. Secondary objectives included overall survival (defined as the length of time from ASCT to death from any cause), assessment of complete response rate, and determination of feasibility of long-term administration of lenalidomide. The assessment of second primary malignancies was an exploratory objective not specified in the protocol.
Statistical analysis
For sample size calculations, a total of n=462 patients were planned to be randomised over a period of 33 months. Accounting for a drop-out rate of 15%, this would require registering n=554 patients over this period. Under an equal allocation scheme (i.e., 231 patients per arm), a planned accrual period of 33 months and a follow-up period of 30 months, this design would have a power of at least 0·9 for the log-rank test to compare a median TTP of 2 years for the control arm and 2·8 years for the experimental arm (HR=1·4) with one-sided alpha = 0·05. The primary statistical analysis was conducted using the log-rank test and the secondary analysis was conducted using the Cox regression method. To assess the occurrence of second primary malignancies (SPM) reported post-randomisation, the non-protocol endpoint of event-free survival (EFS), defined as time of first event (SPM, progressive disease, or death) is considered. Interim analyses were planned on a semi-annual basis to coincide with the semi-annual meetings of the CALGB Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) starting from about 21 months. Superiority tests were conducted using a group sequential test design by Emerson and Fleming 9 and futility tests were conducted to test if the HR of TTP between the two arms was <1·4 with one-sided alpha=0·05. The survival functions are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. 10 The Cox score statistic is used to test discrepancy between survival distributions adjusting for baseline patient characteristics. 11 Hazard ratios are estimated using a Cox model under the implicit assumption of proportional hazards. To assess cause-specific (progression, death, and SPM) risk, the cumulative incidence curves are estimated using Kaplan-Meier estimators 12 and compared using the log-rank test proposed by Gray. 13 All analyses are right censored and per protocol used ASCT as the reference date except the EFS analysis, which uses the randomisation date. The complete response rates at one year after transplant for the lenalidomide and placebo arms were compared by Chi-square testing. The difference in the most frequent grade 3 and higher at least possibly treatment-related adverse events proportion between independent patient groups is tested using Fisher’s test and estimated using a conditional maximum likelihood estimator of the odds ratio. 14 The analyses were conducted by the Alliance Statistics and Data Center using the R Statistical Environment [R Development Core Team 2011] along with the survival and cmprsk extension packages and SAS © 9·4 TS Level 1M3 for Windows [SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA]. A detailed description of the statistical considerations, including the design and analysis methods, has been provided in the supplemental material . All analyses were based on the study database frozen on October 19, 2016.
Role of the funding source
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored the study. Lenalidomide and placebo were provided by Celgene (Summit, New Jersey, United States) to the NCI, which in turn provided the study drugs to the investigators. Celgene was not involved in the study design, conduct of the study, or in the analysis or reporting of the data. All authors had access to the data through the Alliance Statistics and Data Center, which collected the data.
RESULTS
Four hundred sixty patients, out of 568 enrolled patients, were randomised between April 14, 2005 and July 2, 2009: 231 to the lenalidomide group and 229 to the placebo group. As has been previously reported, patients were evenly distributed by age, sex, disease stage, β2-microglobulin level at registration ( supplemental material ). 2 The disposition of the patients, including reasons for ineligibility, is shown in the CONSORT diagram ( Figure 1 and supplemental material ). The reasons for treatment discontinuation are summarised in the supplemental material .
The median follow-up for the updated survival analysis, as of October 19, 2016 was 91 months. One-hundred forty-six of the 231 patients in the lenalidomide group (63%) as compared with 176 of the 229 patients in the placebo group (77%) had progressive disease or had died ( Figure 2A ). The median TTP was 57·3 months (95% CI 44·2–73·3) in lenalidomide group and 28·9 months (95% CI 23·0–36·3) in the placebo group with a hazard ratio of 0·57 (95% CI 0·46 to 0·71; p<0·001). TTP analyses comparing Alliance (EMA) and FDA censoring rules are presented in the supplemental material . A total of 88 out of the 231 patients in the lenalidomide group have died (38%) compared with 120 out of 229 patients in the placebo group (52%) ( Figure 2B ). The median OS is 113·8 months (95% CI 100·4-not reached) in the lenalidomide group and is 84·1 months (95% CI 73·8–106·0) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·61; 95% CI, 0·46 to 0·80; p<0·0004). The rate of overall survival at five years is 76% (95% CI, 70% to 81%) among patients in the lenalidomide group and 64% (95% CI, 58% to 70%) among patients in the placebo group.
The median time to crossover to lenalidomide for those placebo patients who chose to crossover at time of study unblinding was 11 months (range 2·6–49·7 months). Similar hazard ratios for TTP and overall survival were observed when placebo patients crossing over within 6 months of randomisation (n=19) (TTP hazard ratio 0·58, 95% CI 0·47-0·72, p<0·0001; overall survival hazard ratio 0·61, 95% CI 0·47-0·81, p=0·0004) or within 12 months (n=46) (TTP hazard ratio 0·53, 95% CI 0·43-0·66, p<0·0001; overall survival hazard ratio 0·58, 95% CI 0·44-0·76, p<0·0001) of randomisation were included in the lenalidomide arm ( supplemental material ). The median time on treatment for the lenalidomide arm was 31·0 months (95% CI 24·8–35·8 months) and was 18·1 months (95% CI 17·1–22·6 months) for the placebo arm (p<0.0001). Within the placebo group, the median time on treatment for the crossover patients was 30·7 months (95% CI 27·1–37·4) and 14·5 months (95% CI 12·5–17·3) for those patients who did not crossover. Treatment-free intervals were not determined. The median dose for the time on treatment for the lenalidomide arm was 6.8 mg daily.
For those patients who experienced disease progression, the median survival time following progression was similar amongst the two treatment arms (42·6 months (95% CI 36·4–60·5) for lenalidomide and 39·2 months (95% CI 31·2–45·0) for placebo; hazard ratio 0·83 (95% CI 0·61 to 1·13, p=0.23)) ( Figure 3 ). Similarly, no differences in survival time after progression were observed when placebo patients crossing over within six months of randomisation (hazard ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·62-1·13, p=0.24) or within 12 months (hazard ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·64 to 1·15, p=0.30) of randomisation were included in the lenalidomide group ( supplemental material ). Time to second objective disease progression (PFS2) could not be calculated as neither the date of second progression nor the start of third-line therapy was routinely collected from the sites.
Patients were stratified based on prior lenalidomide or thalidomide therapy, beta-2 microglobulin level (elevated vs normal), and investigator-reported complete response status (complete response or no complete response) at time of randomisation. Figure 3 shows the forest plots comparing the relative influences of these stratification factors on TTP and overall survival. There was a benefit of lenalidomide maintenance for TTP across all stratification groups ( Figure 4A ). Patients who received lenalidomide induction and lenalidomide maintenance (n=84) had a median TTP of 71·6 months (95% CI 57·3–97·8) vs. 46·0 months (95% CI 37·2–73·1) (p=0·21) for those who received lenalidomide maintenance in the absence of prior lenalidomide induction (n=147) ( supplemental material ). There was a benefit of lenalidomide maintenance on overall survival regardless of whether patients received prior lenalidomide induction or not ( Figure 4B ). The median overall survival did not differ significantly for patients who received lenalidomide maintenance with prior lenalidomide induction (104·7 months, 95% CI 97·8-not reached) vs those who received lenalidomide maintenance without prior lenalidomide induction (113·8 months, 95% CI 90·5-not reached) (p=0·078) ( supplemental material ). For patients in the placebo arm, the presence or absence of lenalidomide induction did not impact median TTP or overall survival ( supplemental material ). The median TTP for patients in the placebo group who were not in complete response at time of randomisation (n=60) was 19.8 months (95% CI 14·6–36·8) vs 33.0 months (95% CI 23·6–40·6) for patients in complete response (n=153) (p=0·37) ( supplemental material ). For the lenalidomide arm, the median TTP for patients not in complete response at time of randomisation (n=86) was 37·2 months (95% CI 28·9–60·1) vs 66·7 months (95% CI 50·6–94·3) (n=128) (p=0·0018). The median overall survival for these groups were 90·6 months (95% CI 72·5-not reached) (placebo, non-complete response), 80·6 months (95% CI 68· 9-not reached) (placebo, complete response), 97·8 months (95% CI 75· 0-not reached) (lenalidomide, non-complete response) and not reached (95% CI 100· 4-not reached) (lenalidomide, complete response) ( supplemental material ).
Centralized review was performed to assess response (per IMWG criteria) at time of randomisation as well as 1-, 2-, and 3-years post-ASCT ( Table 1 ). Similar complete response rates were observed in the placebo and lenalidomide arms at 1 year (Chi-square testing of complete response/no-complete response vs lenalidomide/placebo, p-value pf 0·78). However, by year 3, the majority of patients who remained in complete response or VGPR were either in the lenalidomide arm or in the crossover arm. There were not reliable data regarding the numbers of patients in biochemical relapse at each time point.
Reported salvage therapies were reviewed and the confirmed initial salvage therapies were compiled ( supplemental material ). Of those patients with confirmed initial salvage regimens, more patients received lenalidomide or a lenalidomide-containing regimen at time of relapse in the placebo arm (73 out 104) than in the lenalidomide (32 out of 101) or crossover arms (18 out of 42). Thirty-five patients were reported to have received a second ASCT at some point, as well as seven who underwent allogeneic transplant and one patient who received a second ASCT and an allogeneic transplant from a haploidentical donor.
Grade 3 and higher haematological and non-haematological adverse events that occurred after randomisation were previously reported for the lenalidomide and placebo arms. 2 With longer follow-up, there have been a small number of additional adverse events reported ( Table 2 and supplemental material ). The adverse events in the placebo arm are now further categorized into the placebo crossover group and the non-crossover group. The majority of the haematologic adverse events in the placebo patients occurred in those who crossed over to receive lenalidomide. A total of three grade 5 adverse events occurred (two in the lenalidomide group and one in the placebo non-crossover group).
The SPMs that were diagnosed after the time of randomisation and before the time of myeloma progression and receipt of salvage therapy are shown in Table 3 . To date, a total of 18 haematological (7·8%), 14 solid tumour (6·1%), and 11 (4·8%) noninvasive SPMs have been diagnosed in the lenalidomide arm vs. a total of three haematological (1·3%), nine solid tumour (3·9%), and six (2·6%) noninvasive SPMs in the placebo arm. Of the placebo arm SPMs, three of three haematological, five of nine solid tumour, and five of six noninvasive SPMs were in the crossover group. Of the twenty-one patients with haematological SPMs, nine received a thalidomide-containing induction regimen, six received a lenalidomide-containing regimen, and six contained an anthracycline-containing induction regimen ( supplemental material ). Details of the solid tumour SPMs are shown in the supplemental material . The majority of the solid tumour SPMs were reported within the first three years after randomisation, but with longer follow-up, haematological SPMs continue to develop ( supplemental material ). The median times to haematological or solid tumour SPMs were similar for both treatment groups: 60·8 months (95% CI 36·1-not reached) (placebo, haematological) vs 49·8 months (95% CI 35·7–83·5) (lenalidomide, haematological) (p=0·86), 27·0 months (95% CI 18·1-not reached) (placebo, solid tumour) vs 21·7 months (95% CI 16·6-not reached) (lenalidomide, solid tumour) (p=0·45) ( supplemental material ). SPMs were also reported after myeloma progression and initiation of salvage therapy, including one haematological, four solid tumour, and two noninvasive SPM in the lenalidomide arm, and five haematological, two solid tumour, and two noninvasive SPMs in the placebo arm ( supplemental material ). Of those placebo arm SPMs, one haematological and one noninvasive SPM occurred in the crossover subgroup. Finally, one haematological, seven solid tumour, and two noninvasive SPMs were reported in enrolled patients who were never randomised ( supplemental material ).
The cumulative incidence risks (CIR) of progressive disease, death, and SPM by treatment arm were analyzed. As shown in Figure 5 , the CIR of progressive disease/death is higher for placebo compared with lenalidomide (p<0·0001) while the CIR of developing a SPM is higher for lenalidomide (p=0·0073) ( Figure 5A ). The CIR of death from any cause is higher with placebo than with lenalidomide (p<0.0001) ( Figure 5B ). The CIR of death from myeloma is higher in the placebo group (p<0·0001) while the CIR of death from SPM is higher in the lenalidomide group (p=0·031) ( Figure 5C ). The CIR curves for haematological vs solid tumour SPMs are shown in the supplemental material . To assess for the potential impact of crossover of placebo patients to lenalidomide on these risks, the CIR of progressive disease/death and SPM were assessed for the placebo patients who did not cross over and for the crossover patients ( supplemental material ). The risks of progressive disease, death, or SPM are not statistically significantly different between the lenalidomide and crossover arms. The median event-free survival (EFS; time to progressive disease, SPM, or death from any cause) for placebo was 27·0 months (95% CI 21·8–34·9) and 44·2 months (95% CI 37·3–56·1) for lenalidomide with a hazard ratio of 0·63 (95% CI 0·51-0·78) (p<0.0001) ( supplemental material ).
DISCUSSION
This updated analysis of the phase 3 randomised trial evaluating lenalidomide vs placebo maintenance following ASCT demonstrates a persistent TTP and overall survival benefit for lenalidomide treatment. This benefit is maintained despite the crossover of a majority of eligible patients on the placebo arm to lenalidomide at the time of study unblinding. Survival after progression does not differ between the two treatment groups. The benefit derived from lenalidomide maintenance is independent of induction therapy as well as complete response status at time of randomisation. Lenalidomide maintenance is associated with an increased risk of haematological SPMs. This study, as well as a number of transplant and non-transplant randomised studies, have demonstrated benefit with prolonged lenalidomide therapy. 3 – 5 , 15 , 16 A meta-analysis of the CALGB, IFM and GIMEMA studies found that lenalidomide maintenance significantly improves overall survival (median overall survival not yet reached for lenalidomide vs. 86 months for control (HR =0·74, log-rank p=0·001)), regardless of response achieved post-ASCT. 6
The study most directly comparable to CALGB 100104 is the IFM 2005-02 trial, which also evaluated lenalidomide vs placebo maintenance therapy following ASCT. While a PFS benefit with lenalidomide was observed, there was no difference in overall survival between the study arms. 3 There are multiple factors which may contribute to the difference in survival outcomes between the studies, including the types of induction regimens, consolidation therapy, numbers of transplants, the duration of lenalidomide maintenance and available salvage therapies. Overall, the IFM 2005-02 study population was exposed to more traditional chemotherapy while the CALGB 100104 study population was exposed to more novel agent-based therapy. The extent to which pre-transplant therapy determines response to subsequent salvage therapies remains to be determined. However, our analysis reveals that patients progressing on lenalidomide maintenance have a similar overall survival after progression as do placebo patients after progression ( Figure 3 ), which suggests that prolonged lenalidomide maintenance does not confer disease resistance.
The optimal dose, schedule, and duration of lenalidomide maintenance continue to be topics of much discussion. The present study as well as the GIMEMA RV-209 and Myeloma XI studies involved lenalidomide maintenance therapy continued until progression while the IFM 2005-02 study discontinued lenalidomide maintenance after a median time of two years (range 1–3 years) due to concerns regarding SPM risk. 3 – 5 The IFM 2009 study which assessed the timing of ASCT, 17 incorporated one year of lenalidomide maintenance while the ongoing American study (DETERMINATION Trial) is identical in design except that maintenance is continued until progression. Future comparison of survival outcomes and toxicities, including the incidence of SPMs, between the IFM 2009 and DETERMINATION studies will provide important information regarding the impact of maintenance duration. The American and French studies (e.g., CALGB 100104, BMT CTN 0702, IFM 2005-02, and IFM 2009) 2 , 3 , 17 , 18 have utilized continuous dosing of lenalidomide while other European studies (e.g., Myeloma XI, GIMEMA RV-209, RV-MM-EMN-441, EMN02/HO95) 4 , 5 , 19 , 20 have utilized a 21/28 day schedule. In the absence of a prospective study comparing the two dosing schedules, it is difficult to conclude from the previously conducted studies whether one schedule is more optimal than the other from either a survival or toxicity perspective. However, it should be noted that the largest of the studies, CALGB 100104 and Myeloma XI, have found very similar median TTP/PFS durations for the lenalidomide arms (57·3 and 60 months respectively) despite the different dosing schedules. As ongoing and planned studies involving the addition of other agents to lenalidomide maintenance progress, it is likely that the optimal dosing, schedule and duration of lenalidomide maintenance will continue to evolve.
Central review of the response data ( Table 1 ) revealed that, despite significant efforts by participating sites to provide follow-up data, there were missing data at later time points. These include bone marrow biopsies, 24-hour urine quantitations and incomplete serum and urine electrophoresis analyses. The independent review committee reviewed all available primary source data. Despite these limitations, this review assessment did reveal that surprisingly, there was little difference in the complete response/VGPR rate between the two arms at one year. However, the majority of patients in complete response/VGPR by year 3 were in either the lenalidomide arm or the crossover subgroup of the placebo arm.
This updated analysis of CALGB 100104 continues to show an increased risk of SPMs associated with lenalidomide maintenance therapy, although the risks of progressive disease and death due to myeloma were substantially higher than the risk of SPM in both cohorts. SPM risk is associated with multiple factors, including the underlying disease, age, and myeloma therapy. There were patients enrolled but never randomised who developed SPMs ( supplemental material ). This is consistent with the underlying SPM risk in this patient population. The risk of malignancy increases with advancing age and age-related clonal hematopoiesis is associated with increased risk of haematological malignancies. 21 , 22 Multiple studies have demonstrated that monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and myeloma, even in the absence of therapy, are associated with increased risk of haematological malignancies, particularly MDS/AML. 23 – 25 This finding implicates the presence of an intrinsic defect in the hematopoietic system in patients with plasma cell dyscrasias. An increased risk of solid tumours in myeloma patients has also been reported. 26 There was not a predominant solid tumour SPM type found in the present study. With respect to lenalidomide, a meta-analysis of 3254 newly diagnosed patients treated on seven randomized phase 3 trials revealed that the cumulative 5-year incidence of all SPMs at 5 years was 6·9% in patients who received lenalidomide vs. 4·8% in those who did not (p=0·037). 27 An increase in haematological malignancies (3·1% vs. 1·4%, p=0·029) but not solid tumours was observed.
Since the time of first publication of CALGB 100104, four new solid tumour SPMs and ten new haematological SPMs were reported in the lenalidomide group. It appears that the risk of solid tumours may be primarily incurred during the first several years of lenalidomide therapy post-transplant, with haematological malignancies continuing to be diagnosed with later follow-up ( Supplemental Figures 6–7 ). However, given the overall small number of SPMs, it is difficult to draw any definite conclusions regarding the temporal association between SPM type and lenalidomide exposure. Genetic analysis, particularly of the haematological SPMs, is needed to better determine the mechanisms by which lenalidomide contributes to the pathogenesis of SPMs. While MDS/AML has previously been associated with high-dose melphalan and myeloma therapy, the appearance of B-cell ALL SPMs has been somewhat unexpected. Further studies are needed to determine whether the effects of lenalidomide on IKZF1, a transcription factor which has been associated with B-cell ALL, 28 – 30 contribute to the development of ALL as a SPM.
In conclusion, our study demonstrates that lenalidomide maintenance therapy post-ASCT confers significant TTP and overall survival benefit. The overall survival data, which shows a median overall survival of 9·5 years (from time of ASCT), provides a new benchmark for survival, particularly noteworthy as this study was conducted in an era where triplet regimens containing IMiD/PI were not routinely used. Cytogenetic and FISH testing of diagnostic samples was not available for the majority of patients, thus the impact of lenalidomide maintenance on different cytogenetic risk groups cannot be determined. Preliminary results of the Myeloma XI trial demonstrated benefit in high and low cytogenetic risk patients. 5 This report demonstrates that patients in CR post-ASCT benefit from lenalidomide maintenance, however, the CR response was determined by numbers of bone marrow plasma cells and immunofixation testing. The newly revised IMWG criteria now include minimal residual disease assessment and multiple studies have demonstrated superior outcomes for patients who achieve MRD-negativity post-ASCT. 31 – 33 Thus the extent to which lenalidomide maintenance improves survival outcomes for MRD-negative vs MRD-positive patients remains to be determined. One limitation of the study is that quality of life data were not prospectively collected. However, this study is amongst a growing number of studies demonstrating the feasibility of long-term maintenance therapy with lenalidomide. Lenalidomide maintenance until progression post-ASCT may be considered a standard of care and should form the backbone of future maintenance studies incorporating novel agents such as monoclonal antibodies or vaccine-based approaches.
Supplementary Material
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00114101
Author contributions :
Holstein: Literature search, figures, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing
Jung: data analysis, data interpretation, writing
Richardson: data interpretation, writing
Hofmeister: data interpretation, writing
Hurd: data interpretation, writing
Hassoun: data interpretation, writing
Giralt: data interpretation, writing
Stadtmauer: data interpretation, writing
Weisdorf: data interpretation, writing
Vij: data interpretation, writing
Moreb: data interpretation, writing
Callander: data interpretation, writing
van Besien: data interpretation, writing
Gentile: data interpretation, writing
Isola: data interpretation, writing
Maziarz: data interpretation, writing
Bashey: data interpretation, writing
Landau: data interpretation, writing
Martin: data interpretation, writing
Qazilbash: data interpretation, writing
Rodriguez: data interpretation, writing
McClune: data interpretation, writing
Schlossman: data interpretation, writing
Smith: data interpretation
Hars: data analysis, data interpretation, figures, writing
Owzar: study design, data interpretation, writing
Jiang: data analysis, data interpretation, figures, writing
Boyd: data collection, data analysis
Schultz: data collection, data analysis
Wilson: data collection, data analysis
Hari: data interpretation, writing
Pasquini: data interpretation, writing
Horowitz: data interpretation, writing
Shea: study design, data interpretation, writing
Devine: study design, data interpretation, writing
Linker: study design, data interpretation, writing
Anderson: study design, data interpretation, writing
McCarthy: Literature search, study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing
The study team would like to thank the patients and families who participated in this study and the clinical teams who provided care for the patients. We wish to acknowledge the efforts of the research nurses, data coordinators, and investigators who participated in the data cleaning efforts. We would also like to acknowledge those members of the Alliance who assisted with the protocol development and amendments, including Michael Kelly, Destin Carlisle and Guadalupe Aquino. We would like to thank Michelle Maglio for administrative support. We thank John Postiglione for his efforts on this study. Finally, we wish to honor the memory of Dr. Dan Sargent who tragically died in 2016. Dr. Sargent was the head of the Alliance Statistics and Data Center and facilitated the publication of the first report of the CALGB 100104 study as well as the update. He provided sage advice throughout the analysis.
Declaration of interests:
Dr. Anderson reports personal fees from Celgene, Millennium Takeda, Gilead, Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Bashey has nothing to disclose. Ms Boyd has nothing to disclose. Dr. Callander has nothing to disclose. Dr. Devine has nothing to disclose. Dr. Gentile has nothing to disclose. Dr. Giralt reports research funding and personal fees from Celgene and Takeda, research funding from Sanofi, personal fees from Jazz and Amgen. Dr. Hari reports grants and personal fees from Celgene. Ms Hars has nothing to disclose. Dr. Hassoun reports grants from CALGB/Alliance during the conduct of the study and grants from Celgene. Dr. Hofmeister reports other support (local principal investigator for clinical trial using drug made by Celgene) from Celgene. Dr. Holstein reports personal fees from Celgene, Takeda and Amgen. She received travel support and honoraria for response adjudication of this study by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. Dr. Horowitz has nothing to disclose. Dr. Hurd has nothing to disclose. Dr. Isola has nothing to disclose. Dr. Jiang has nothing to disclose. Dr. Jung has nothing to disclose. Dr. Landau reports grants from Celgene during the conduct of the study, personal fees from Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Prothena, Janssen, and Takeda. Dr. Linker has nothing to disclose. Dr. Maziarz has nothing to disclose. Dr. McCarthy reports research support and personal fees from Celgene, and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Karyopharm, Gamida Cell, Janssen, Sanofi, and The Binding Site. He received travel support and honoraria for response adjudication of this study by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. Dr. McClune has nothing to disclose. Dr. Moreb has nothing to disclose. Dr. Owzar has nothing to disclose. Dr. Pasquini reports personal fees from Atara Biotherapeutics, Pfizer, and Baxalta. Dr. Qazilbash has nothing to disclose. Dr. Richardson reports personal fees from Celgene. Dr. Rodriguez has nothing to disclose. Dr. Schlossman has nothing to disclose. Ms Schultz has nothing to disclose. Dr. Shea has nothing to disclose. Dr. Smith has nothing to disclose. Dr. Stadtmauer reports personal fees from Celgene and Takeda. Dr. van Besien has nothing to disclose. Dr. Vij reports personal fees from Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, AbbVie, Karyopharm and research support and personal fees from Amgen and Takeda. Dr. Weisdorf has nothing to disclose. Ms Wilson has nothing to disclose.
Funding source: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Numbers U10CA031946, U10CA033601, U10CA180821 and U10CA180882 (to the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology),U01HL069294, U10CA021115, , U10CA004457, U10CA007968, U10CA016450, U10CA021060, U10CA032291, U10CA047559, U10CA059518, U10CA077298, U10CA077440, U10CA077651, U10CA077658, U10CA138561, U10CA180791, U10CA180799, U10CA180833, U10CA180838, U10CA180850, U10CA180858, U10CA180866, and U10CA180867. Support for this study was provided in part by the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network through grant #U10HL069294 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and the National Cancer Institute. Support was also provided in part by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) supported by CA21115. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. This study was also supported in part by Celgene Corporation.
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored the study.
1 Morgan GJ Gregory WM Davies FE The role of maintenance thalidomide therapy in multiple myeloma: MRC Myeloma IX results and meta-analysis Blood 2012 119 1 7 15 22021371 10.1182/blood-2011-06-357038
2 McCarthy PL Owzar K Hofmeister CC Lenalidomide after stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2012 366 19 1770 81 22571201 10.1056/NEJMoa1114083 PMC3744390
3 Attal M Lauwers-Cances V Marit G Lenalidomide maintenance after stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2012 366 19 1782 91 22571202 10.1056/NEJMoa1114138
4 Palumbo A Cavallo F Gay F Autologous transplantation and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2014 271 10 895 905 10.1056/NEJMoa1402888 25184862
5 Jackson GH Davies FE Pawlyn C Lenalidomide is a highly effective maintenance therapy in myeloma patients of all ages; results of the phase III Myeloma XI study Blood (ASH Abstracts) 2016 128 1143
6 Attal M Palumbo A Holstein SA Lenalidomide (LEN) maintenance (MNTC) after high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM): A meta-analysis (MA) of overall survival (OS) J Clin Oncol 2016 34 15 suppl 8001
7 Blade J Samson D Reece D Criteria for evaluating disease response and progression in patients with multiple myeloma treated by high-dose therapy and haemopoietic stem cell transplantation. Myeloma Subcommittee of the EBMT. European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplant Br J Haematol 1998 102 5 1115 23 9753033 10.1046/j.1365-2141.1998.00930.x
8 Durie BG Harousseau JL Miguel JS International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma Leukemia 2006 20 9 1467 73 16855634 10.1038/sj.leu.2404284
9 Emerson SS Fleming TR Symmetric group sequential test designs Biometrics 1989 45 3 905 23 2675998
10 Kaplan EL Meier P Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations J Am Stat Assoc 1958 53 457 81
11 Cox DR Oakes D Analysis of Survival Data Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability 21 Chapman & Hall 1984
12 Kalbfleisch JD Prentice RL The statistical analysis of failure time data 2 Hoboken John Wiley & Sons, Inc 2002
13 Gray RJ A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk Ann Stat 1988 16 3 1141 54
14 Fisher RA The logic of inductive inference J R Stat Soc 1935 98 39 54
15 Palumbo A Hajek R Delforge M Continuous lenalidomide and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible patients with myeloma N Engl J Med 2012 366 19 1759 69 22571200 10.1056/NEJMoa1112704
16 Benboubker L Dimopoulos MA Dispenzieri A Lenalidomide and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible patients with myeloma N Engl J Med 2014 371 10 906 17 25184863 10.1056/NEJMoa1402551
17 Attal M Lauwers-Cances V Hulin C Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with transplantation for myeloma N Engl J Med 2017 376 14 1311 20 28379796 10.1056/NEJMoa1611750 PMC6201242
18 Stadtmauer EA Pasquini MC Blackwell B Comparison of autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (autoHCT), bortezomib, lenalidomide (Len) and dexamethasone (RVD) consolidation with Len maintenance (ACM), tandem autoHCT with Len maintenance (TAM) and autoHCT with Len maintenance (AM) for up-front treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM): primary results from the randomized phase III trial of the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN 0702-StaMINA trial) Blood (ASH Abstracts) 2016 128 LBA-1
19 Gay F Oliva S Petrucci MT Chemotherapy plus lenalidomide versus autologous transplantation, followed by lenalidomide plus prednisone versus lenalidomide maintenance, in patients with multiple myeloma: a randomised, multicenter, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 2015 16 16 1617 29 26596670 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00389-7
20 Cavo M Palumbo A Zweegman S Upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) versus novel agent-based therapy for multiple myeloma (MM): a randomized phase 3 study of the European Myeloma Network (EMN02/HO95 MM trial) J Clin Oncol 2016 34 15 suppl 8000
21 Genovese G Kahler AK Handsaker RE Clonal hematopoiesis and blood-cancer risk inferred from blood DNA sequence N Engl J Med 2014 371 26 2477 87 25426838 10.1056/NEJMoa1409405 PMC4290021
22 Jaiswal S Fontanillas P Flannick J Age-related clonal hematopoiesis associated with adverse outcomes N Engl J Med 2014 371 26 2488 98 25426837 10.1056/NEJMoa1408617 PMC4306669
23 Tzeng HE Lin CL Tsai CH Time trend of multiple myeloma and associated secondary primary malignancies in Asian patients: a Taiwan population-based study PLoS One 2013 8 7 e68041 23844152 10.1371/journal.pone.0068041 PMC3699496
24 Razavi P Rand KA Cozen W Patterns of second primary malignancy risk in multiple myeloma patients before and after the introduction of novel therapeutics Blood Cancer J 2013 3 e121 23811785 10.1038/bcj.2013.19 PMC3698537
25 Mailankody S Pfeiffer RM Kristinsson SY Risk of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes after multiple myeloma and its precursor disease (MGUS) Blood 2011 118 15 4086 92 21795746 10.1182/blood-2011-05-355743 PMC3204729
26 Hasskarl J Ihorst G De Pasquale D Association of multiple myeloma with different neoplasms: systematic analysis in consecutive patients with myeloma Leuk Lymphoma 2011 52 2 247 59 21054148 10.3109/10428194.2010.529207
27 Palumbo A Bringhen S Kumar SK Second primary malignancies with lenalidomide therapy for newly diagnosed myeloma: a meta-analysis of individual patient data Lancet Oncol 2014 15 3 333 42 24525202 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70609-0
28 Mullighan CG Goorha S Radtke I Genome-wide analysis of genetic alterations in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia Nature 2007 446 7137 758 64 17344859 10.1038/nature05690
29 Mullighan CG Miller CB Radtke I BCR-ABL1 lymphoblastic leukaemia is characterized by the deletion of Ikaros Nature 2008 453 7101 110 4 18408710 10.1038/nature06866
30 Iacobucci I Storlazzi CT Cilloni D Identification and molecular characterization of recurrent genomic deletions on 7p12 in the IKZF1 gene in a large cohort of BCR-ABL1-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients: on behalf of Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche dell’Adulto Acute Leukemia Working Party (GIMEMA AL WP) Blood 2009 114 10 2159 67 19589926 10.1182/blood-2008-08-173963
31 Kumar S Paiva B Anderson KC International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma Lancet Oncol 2016 17 8 e328 46 27511158 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6
32 Paiva B Vidriales MB Cervero J Multiparameter flow cytometric remission is the most relevant prognostic factor for multiple myeloma patients who undergo autologous stem cell transplantation Blood 2008 112 10 4017 23 18669875 10.1182/blood-2008-05-159624 PMC2581991
33 Rawstron AC Child JA de Tute RM Minimal residual disease assessed by multiparatmeter flow cytometry in multiple myeloma: impact on outcome in the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study J Clin Oncol 2013 31 20 2540 7 23733781 10.1200/JCO.2012.46.2119